For years now, Californians have watched housing costs soar, homelessness spike, and the dream of homeownership drift ever further from reach. Politicians from Sacramento to San Diego proclaim that they are addressing the problem, churning out legislation year after year.
Yet, as Dan Walters of CalMatters recently noted, there’s little evidence that these efforts have materially moved the needle.
The crisis is especially galling because it isn’t inevitable.
A new report from the George W. Bush Institute, Build Homes, Expand Opportunity, makes the case that other states and metro areas—many of them in the fast-growing Sun Belt and Mountain West—have figured out how to produce housing that meets demand, keeps prices in check, and reduces homelessness. In contrast, California metros dominate the list of the 25 most restrictive areas in the nation.
If California leaders are serious about solving this crisis, Walters argues, they need to drop the moral posturing and learn from what actually works. The status quo—overregulation, restrictive zoning, and a political culture that prioritizes neighborhood veto power over housing supply—is not working.
The Bush Institute report identifies several policy levers that distinguish successful cities from laggards like California. Among them:
- Zoning reform. Cities that perform well allow multifamily and high-density housing in substantial portions of their urban footprint. This includes mixed-use neighborhoods and “missing middle” housing like duplexes and fourplexes.
- Reduced lot sizes and parking mandates. Cutting back on lot minimums and eliminating arbitrary parking requirements makes construction more feasible and affordable.
- Reusing underutilized land. Allowing residential construction in commercial areas—think old strip malls and office parks—creates housing where infrastructure already exists.
- Embracing innovation. Technologies like modular construction and 3D-printed homes can bring down costs, but only if building codes and local approval processes make room for them.
None of this is shocking or new. However, crucially, these metro areas are not just deregulating housing—they’re aligning other policies around it. They invest in public schools, transit, walkable downtowns, parks, and vibrant mixed-use communities.
Moreover, this is not about sprawl, but about making cities livable and inclusive.
By contrast, Walters argues that California continues to shoot itself in the foot.
Cities across the state—Oxnard, San Jose, San Diego, Riverside, Sacramento, and beyond—feature among the most restrictive housing markets in the nation. Their zoning codes limit density, preserve exclusionary enclaves, and demand expensive requirements for new construction that render many affordable projects unviable.
We’ve seen this play out time and again: Projects are delayed or killed by endless CEQA lawsuits, neighborhood opposition, or bureaucratic inertia. Even modest proposals for affordable housing or shelters face fierce resistance under the guise of protecting “neighborhood character.”
Meanwhile, the legislature keeps passing laws that nibble around the edges, often watered down to appease entrenched interests. Laws like SB 9 and SB 10 offered hope but have been undercut by loopholes, weak enforcement, and local foot-dragging. Governor Newsom’s declarations of a “Marshall Plan for housing” sound bold, but fail to result in significant increases in housing starts.
One reason for this paralysis is that California politics have long been dominated by homeowners who see new housing as a threat to their property values or parking spaces. But the political tide may be turning.
Young people priced out of the market, renters facing eviction, and families pushed to the edge of homelessness are increasingly vocal. Organizations like California YIMBY have helped reframe the conversation, pointing out that the housing crisis is a result of policy choices—not natural scarcity. The new Colorado study cited by YIMBY shows that pro-housing land use reform can drastically reduce both housing costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
The lesson is simple: build more homes in the right places, and we can make our cities more affordable, inclusive, and sustainable.
Here’s what a real housing reform agenda for California could look like:
- Statewide zoning reform. The state must legalize multifamily housing in every community. Local control cannot be a license for exclusion.
- Streamlined permitting. Building housing should not require navigating a bureaucratic maze or surviving years of litigation. Make approvals by-right in infill areas.
- Eliminate parking minimums. They drive up costs and undermine transit. Let developers decide how much parking their project needs.
- Incentivize adaptive reuse. Turn vacant office buildings and underused commercial corridors into housing through grants, tax credits, and expedited permitting.
- Invest in infrastructure. Support housing growth with improved transit, schools, and green spaces. Housing doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
- Enforce housing laws. The state must hold cities accountable when they fail to meet housing element targets or violate fair housing rules.
- Fund deeply affordable housing. For those the market won’t reach, especially low-income and unhoused residents, public funding remains essential. But it must be paired with land use reform.
Again – none of this is particularly novel, except for the fact that California has largely failed to do this.
Solving the housing crisis is not just a policy challenge—it’s a moral imperative. Every year, more Californians are displaced, driven into poverty, or forced to live on the streets. Children grow up in overcrowded apartments; seniors on fixed incomes face eviction; essential workers commute hours from home.
This is not the cost of progress—it’s the cost of inaction. We must reject the idea that California’s crisis is unique or unsolvable. Other states are proving that it’s possible to grow, house people, and maintain quality of life. So must we.
Housing is the foundation of opportunity. If California truly believes in equity, sustainability, and justice, then we must build. Not next year. Now.
Your “models” of what California should do consist of states which encourage sprawl (even more than California ALREADY does). They are not centers of dense urban living.
And for what it’s worth, housing prices are crashing in those areas (and are coming down in California as well).
There is no housing shortage – it was “made up” by those who benefit from promoting one. We went through that yesterday (and the day before, . . .). And tomorrow, the next day . . .
Fun with A.I. images.
“Young people priced out of the market, renters facing eviction, and families pushed to the edge of homelessness are increasingly vocal.”
Especially when they are paid by developers to be increasingly vocal (as oft in evidence when they read the same talking points with little heart or feeling and happen to all be from the same on-campus Democrat club)
“it’s a moral imperative”
Like I said, the Davis Vanguard does the work of the Lord. Or some omnipotent being.
“we must build. Not next year. Now.”
The biggest joke is the D-CAN lie that Build Baby Build is also good for the environment. Only massive investment in transit infrastructure will do that. Otherwise we’ll end up with either sprawl (and more VMTs) or block brutalist infill with insufficient parking.
“The biggest joke is the D-CAN lie that Build Baby Build is also good for the environment.”
I don’t think that’s a fair framing of her view point – she clearly argues that we need housing (do you actually disagree Alan Miller?) but links that housing to climate justice, equity and sustainability.
“do you actually disagree Alan Miller?”
I’m a moderate on housing. I think Davis can build a bit. I’d like to see an end to Measure J, and implementation of a a voter-agreed-to urban limit line, and a basic design for future gross than encompasses bike and transit corridors, and a generous, permanent green belt between Davis and Woodland. I don’t think Davis can even begin to solve the high cost of housing via building or subsidy or any way whatsoever. And Davis will have 0.00001 % effect on the Earth temperature, even if it tries really really really hard. So stop trying. And if we clown ourselves, we may even have a negative effect.
The type of housing that YIMBYs “say” they’re for is something like Trackside. Already near a train station, etc.
But this is also how they turn people against each other.
One really does have to start out with the fake claims regarding a “housing shortage”. Otherwise, it’s always going to be “put it over there”, instead of “here”.
There isn’t going to be agreement on a voter-approved urban limit line that “replaces” the one that Davis already has. (Which has already been expanded twice, under Measure J.)
There is no problem to be solved here, other than to ensure that the housing crisis people are called out regarding their claims. (And probably most of them consist of people who don’t want to “right size” the school district.)
That’s actually not true. Trackside is luxury housing, it’s not dense, it doesn’t fill a need. I was always against Trackside for that reason.
You’re against an infill proposal?
Since it hasn’t even been built (and the original development team sold it), it doesn’t even seem to be penciling out as approved.
Similar issue with University Mall. (The city itself really dodged a bullet when the developer refused to compromise that mall.)
Then there’s the other developments in that same area (one of which is a “builder’s remedy” as I recall), as well as the former site of Hibbert’s Lumber, Davis ACE housewares, etc.).
Not a single shovel turned, regarding the type of infill that you and other YIMBYs normally support.
But my point being that unless people like you are called out regarding your underlying claims, it’s always going to be a fight regarding “put it over there”. We saw that with University Mall (some supporters of that, who no doubt would not support it if it was right next to them). Same noise being made to a lesser degree regarding the PG&E site.
This will also be an issue regarding sprawl, whether it’s Village Farms, Shriner’s, or the technology park that “gave up” before even being presented to the voters. (The site now occupied by Bretton Woods housing development.)
Then there’s the other unbuilt proposals in the city, that no one is even opposing (e.g., Chiles Ranch, the site on Pole Line, etc.).
University Mall was going to be apartments for students, Trackside was going to be condos for high end users. I think it was going to be less than 40 units, for a non-needed niche group. It never made sense to blow up the neighborhood relations over it. Alan Miller, in my view, has never been the same.
Seems that you don’t consistently make that argument, regarding housing proposals. In fact, you usually make the opposite argument – that more housing of “all types” is needed.
The more-cynical side of me thinks that you may be picking and choosing your battles based on popularity with some people, rather than what you actually believe. In other words, you almost have the makings of an actual politician.
That’s also how I viewed Lucas’ last-minute “switch” to oppose housing at University Mall. I watched him make that decision, and could almost “feel” him squirming in his seat on the dais when he made that unexpected, last-minute decision. (No doubt, as a result of an earful he was receiving from his own district.)
As usual, you didn’t understand the nuance in my position. It wasn’t worth fighting over a project that had less than 40 units.
So, that’s 40 units that you claim to have not supported because it “wasn’t enough”. (And this occurred during a time in which there was no “alternative” proposal.) While you simultaneously claim to support more housing of all types/income levels.
For that matter, I’m sure you realized that an even-denser proposal would have generated more opposition, among some of the people you know (including one person who was on the Board of the Vanguard, at that time). Now, I don’t know what goes on inside your head, but I can observe facts/stated positions.
As such, I have trouble believing that the reason for your stated position is entirely accurate (or “complete”), as well as your earlier claims that you “supported” Measure J.
The amazing thing is – both things are in the vast Vanguard archives.
“Alan Miller, in my view, has never been the same.”
Even before I was never the same, I was never the same :-|
But thanks for the unrequested psycho anal y sis :-\
I’ll add it to my being a right winger — as to the new character that’s being built for me in the Vanguard.
Still missing: something to curb land speculation–which also raises land prices. That’s where the real money is. In California, the speculators can make massive profits by optioning outlying ag land for a few thousand dollars an acre, then reselling it once they’ve obtained the entitlements to build for 50 to 100 times more. In Germany, the developers have to sell the land to local governments at the ag land price, then repurchase it at the upzoned price if they want to develop it. That enormous profit–the “unearned increment”–inures to the benefit of the public, not the developers.
Also not mentioned: Richard Nixon stopped the feds from building affordable housing in 1971. Ronald Reagan cut HUD’s affordable housing budget by 75% as he reduced taxes on the wealthy by roughly half.
Finally, I’ll agree with the other commenter who says we need no more housing. I’ve read San Francisco has five times its homeless population in vacant homes, and the US has more vacant homes than homeless. The problem isn’t lack of resources, it’s poorly-distributed resources.
When you say that about vacant homes, it doesn’t mean those are available for someone to purchase or move into. If you want to curb land speculation, make it possible to build housing.
Seems that Adam has another possible solution to curb land speculation. (Though I’d question if municipalities would then actively pursue the “profit”, instead.)
Regardless, I see no chance of Adam’s proposal becoming law in the U.S. There’s already so many wealthy, entrenched interests and political allies who would immediately and effectively bury it.
The only “hope” that Davis has is to save its “spanking machine” – which somehow, allowed a couple of proposals to slip through unscathed. (Might have had a couple of paddle marks along the way.)
:-)
But seriously, there are already developments in the pipeline, including the 96 single family housing unit development mentioned above.
Also not legal
I assume you’re referring to Adam’s proposal, and yeah – I also believe that current laws would not allow local governments to compete with private developers.
For that matter, private businesses “complain” about the work that prisoners perform, at times. (Which no doubt results in a less-favorable outcome within the prison system.)
The more I learn about people and the self-interested systems that they often support, the more cynical I’ve become. (I didn’t used to be this way.)
Politics is even worse than most people already think it is.
More than just current law – fifth amendment, takings clause
“Takings” clause refers to something being taken-away.
If land is currently zoned for agriculture, the only thing that can be “taken” is the potential/future rezoning for urban uses. In other words, something that they don’t have, and which isn’t promised. (Though in our system, there seems to be a “wink-wink” that it is promised.)
(I suspect there would be an argument that municipalities would lose, regardless.)
There is actually kind of a sickness in our capitalistic system – which cannot easily be changed. (And the reason for that is because it’s corrupted the political system, as well. Part of it may also be cultural.)
This is a country that just elected Trump – enough said.
the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the idea that only current use matters when evaluating takings claims.
There you go.
And that’s why agricultural land / open space is in danger.
This was also addressed in “Rebels with a Cause”, regarding the earlier efforts to save agricultural land in Marin county. In other words, the implication is that it would likely be challenged if that was occurring, today.
By the way, there’s now a fight there regarding ranches WITHIN the Pt. Reyes National Seashore, which were provided with a payout to vacate their leases by The Nature Conservancy. They’re hoping that Trump intervenes, among other actions they’re taking.
So even when the land is PUBLICLY-OWNED and is part of a National Seashore (and was purchased by taxpayers from willing sellers decades ago), some continue to lay never-ending claims to it.
There is now a Congressional Inquiry into all of that, as well as more than one lawsuit. (From the parties who want to continue privatization of those public lands.)
You’re proving my point from earlier…. Marin County is THE textbook case of exclusionary land use practices that prioritize environmental protection and open space at the expense of housing equity and racial justice. While it is true that it’s lauded for its successful preservation of agricultural and scenic land, but that success comes with significant social costs — and it’s increasingly cited as a cautionary tale of how “green” policies can entrench segregation and housing scarcity. This is why we need to strike the balance.
Oh, and one last thing which might be of interest to you in particular:
I understand that one of the lawsuits at Pt. Reyes (as well as the Congressional Inquiry) is supposedly based on the “low-income” housing that ranch workers live in, within the park.
I was watching a program last night, and the attorney representing those workers was apparently “tipped off” by a non-profit housing advocacy group – he didn’t say which one.
The attorney acknowledged that these ranch workers won’t likely have jobs when the ranches shut down, and yet he’s advocating for them to continue living there.
He also said that a “philanthropist” is promising to match any payout received from The Nature Conservancy, if they continue to live there (and decide to move, later).
It will be interesting to see how the Trump administration handles this, since some of the ranch workers may be “undocumented”.
Another lawsuit relates to continued ranching, itself.
It should be noted that no ranch is actually “required” to leave, but most have accepted buyouts from The Nature Conservancy.
Also, just saw your comment above as I was typing this. Marin county does not “prove” your point. I don’t live in Marin county, but I strongly support its land preservation efforts.
There is no such thing as “balance”. Never has been, never will be. It’s also a term that has no meaning – like “moderation”.
For example, I believe that “moderation” should have occurred perhaps 70 years ago – way before California reached almost 40 million people.
People live where they can afford to live. And prices do not rise above a level that some people will pay.
And again, if you don’t want housing prices to rise in a given area, stop pursuing businesses like those in Silicon Valley – in excess of what the local population actually “needs”.
“Also, just saw your comment above as I was typing this. Marin county does not “prove” your point. I don’t live in Marin county, but I strongly support its land preservation efforts.”
The point being those preservation costs benefit a certain privileged constituency
Well, good for them. But I can tell you that the open spaces belong to (and are used by) everyone – not just those in Marin county. And they’re also for future generations.
There’s also such a thing as having (individual) long-term goals. I, for one, would have never moved to this area if I was able to afford where I’d prefer to live. And I’m fine with that – my life isn’t over, yet.
I don’t harbor resentment toward those who found greater success than I have, earlier in life. (Or at least, I try not to.) Nor do I want to destroy the locale where they do live. (Perhaps I’ll even join them, someday.)
Also, natural areas are not just for “people”. That’s really the whole point of them, when you come right down to it.
Bringing this back to Davis, it would be great if just “one” town in this area pursued less sprawl than any of the others – take your pick since they all do.
Your first paragraph is a basic tacit acknowledgment that you don’t understand the issue that I raised and the implications of that inequity that you’re supporting
I fully understand it.
Given that we live in a capitalistic system, there is no such thing as “equity”. (And I’m not just referring to equity between different skin colors.)
Get rid of capitalism, if you want “equity”. But even then, it would be replaced by something else which likely wouldn’t create “equity”.
We live in a COMPETITIVE society – where we compete with EVERYONE else – regardless of skin color, gender, etc. That’s true for jobs, housing, money in general, etc.
And ultimately, very few people care if they beat out someone of the “same” skin color, vs. someone of a “different” skin color. It’s irrelevant on a personal level.
You can see this within the education system, as well.
We fight wars with people “sharing” our own skin colors.
If you did, you wouldn’t have said that everyone had access to the open space
RO say: ” . . . there’s now a fight there regarding ranches WITHIN the Pt. Reyes National Seashore . . .
“DG say: “Marin County is THE textbook case of exclusionary land use practices that prioritize environmental protection and open space at the expense of housing equity and racial justice.”
Oh come on, DG. The Point Reyes issue has NOTHING to do with housing. This land is either going to be ranches or preserved as natural habitat. The push for this came because the park service had fenced-in a herd of ELK in an area where they had insufficient land for their needs and were dying, all because the ranches didn’t want the elk competing with their dirty cattle. I mean that literally, the cattle make an absolute mess of the landscape and pollute the waters, while the elk, native to the area, are in harmony with the area.
The man who led this effort is a friend of mine, and I have gone out a couple of times to march in favor of shutting down the ranches and freeing the elk. I’m beginning to think that if your developer friends handed you a machine gun you would go out yourself and mow down both the elk and the cattle so that these developers could build luxury apartments with an ocean view and make hundreds of millions in profits, and siphon off 0.01% to keep the Vanguard afloat.
If I did “what”?
I was mostly referring to people within a radius of the parks in Marin (e.g., those living in San Francisco, etc.).
But the truth is that anyone can visit (and even camp in) some of them.
Now, are some people (not in Marin) fortunate to have that within their vicinity? You betcha. So what?
Anyone living within 30 miles or so of the coast also has better weather than anyone who lives in the valley. (Though there are people who have the money to live along the coast, but STILL choose to live in places like Granite Bay, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, etc.). Hell, some of those people live in places like Pam Springs, as well. (“Lovely” weather, there.)
Some (probably most) environmental groups do have programs where they specifically sponsor those who (normally) don’t visit parks – even when they “do” live relatively close to them.
Just happened across this article, as well:
“Mr. Cui recently hired former Marin County supervisor Steve Kinsey, who served on the coastal commission during his time with the county, and attorney Andrew Giacomini. Mr. Giacomini—a cousin of the family that sold Mr. Cui the land—is currently representing dozens of tenants in a lawsuit aimed at preserving affordable housing on ranches within the Point Reyes National Seashore.”
“That property ought to be developed,” Mr. Giacomini told the Light. “We ought to use that property to develop as many houses as we can without completely disrupting the culture of Point Reyes Station. We need the houses, and there’s not a lot of places to put them. I mean, we’re in a housing crisis!”
(Can’t help but think that Andrew Giacomini’s father, Gary – would NOT be proud of what his son is now doing.)
https://www.marinij.com/2016/12/03/longtime-marin-political-force-gary-giacomini-dies-at-77/
https://www.ptreyeslight.com/news/pt-reyes-housing-proposal-set-back/
As a side note, I watched “California Insider” on YouTube last night, and was appalled at what Andrew Giacomini had to say. (He seemed to support the Trump administration’s plan to sell off public land for housing.)
He also implied that the park service itself acted inappropriately.
Unfortunately, Mr. Giacomini is also a leader at the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), which is increasingly causing me concern.
There is a separate controversy regarding wealthy ranchers receiving preservation funds, rather than having those funds reserved for public lands as I recall. Something like that.)
Oh, Jesus H. Christ
They aren’t seriously going to put subsidized housing out there? There aren’t many jobs out there. So the ranchers are now trying to sell to developers. Bad enough losing farmland in Yolo to developers, now we may lose Pt. Reyes?
Two different places, in case that wasn’t clear from the quotes.
One has to do with housing in the park, and one has to do with a housing proposal on land that a developer from China purchased from a cousin of Andrew Giacomini – who is involved in both of these issues.
Apparently, the Giacomini family is a major ranching family in that area. (Like I said, his late Dad – Gary – was a “good guy”, however. If you watch Rebel With a Cause, you’ll see that he went against his own family at the time. They were apparently quite angry with him.)
But either way, there’s definitely not many jobs out there (and there’s about to be fewer of them, when most of the ranches shut down).
I need a map
Don’t know if there’s a map, but the description of the property that was sold to a developer is described in the article I referenced.
https://www.ptreyeslight.com/news/pt-reyes-housing-proposal-set-back/
By the way, “Rebels with a Cause” references the relatively high housing prices near the end of the program. Not sure if it was Gary Giacomini (the good guy) who said that he’d ultimately “do it again” (preserve land), regardless.
It is perhaps the most-inspiring program I’ve ever seen, and not a dull moment. It deals with more than Pt. Reyes.
His attorney son (Andrew – referenced earlier) seems to have a very different view than his father.
In reference to my comment, above:
“Is this really how Margarito Loza’s mind works, or has he been brainwashed by Andrew Giacomini in combination with years of being exposed to the ‘victimhood mindset’ of the Point Reyes Ranchers?”
“In a recent article from the Press Democrat one of the ranch employees that Andrew Giacomini talked into being a plaintiff in his case to disrupt the progress toward saving Point Reyes National Seashore spoke of his struggles as a low income worker who now faces the possibility of trying to find new housing.”
“It’s fascinating just how much the people of Point Reyes think they are owed, from the planet-killing multimillionaire ranchers at the top right down to their undocumented labor force at the bottom. I say fascinated, but not surprising. We’ve reached the point in victimhood society that even people who are working illegally in this country are making demands. It was only a few years ago that these people wanted to hide their faces in fear of deportation and retaliation from the ranchers. Now, a ranch-family lawyer has convinced them to show their faces and sue the national park with the idea that they are owed housing.”
2. “What are some other examples of when a private business shuts down it falls upon the taxpayer to provided homes for those who are about to lose their jobs? I’ve lived through multiple layoffs and no one ever offered me housing to assist with the hardships ahead. Are these particular people owed housing because they were exploited by their employers? If so, this sends the message that the less successful you are the more you are owed. Shame on me for getting all those college degrees. All I really needed to do was help ranchers get rich by being a participant in the cruel treatment of animals and the murder of the planet. Heck, in addition to ocean side housing in California, let’s give these wonderfully poor ranch workers $50,000.00 bonuses for being participants in the destruction of the park all these years.”
https://shameofpointreyes.weebly.com/
(And this, my fellow Vanguard friends, is an example of where fake concerns regarding “equity” come into play, leading to privatization of public land, sprawl, and a plethora of environmental problems.)